Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    April 8, 2013 2:00am-2:30am PDT

2:00 am
public would like to comment? seeing none come forward we'll close public comment. next item please. >> this is an information item >> items introduced okay. public comment on this item? we'll close public comment. >> next item? >> no. 5. public comment. >> any public comment? we'll close public comment. >> last item. >> item 6. adjournment. >> we are adjourned. thank you. san francisco planning
2:01 am
commission hearing april 4, 2013. please know that san francisco does not tolerate any electronic devices. i would like to take roll. fong, wu, borden, hillist, moore, here. >> commissioners, first on your calendar are items proposed for continuous, item 1, 2012, t and z amendments to the planning
2:02 am
code. item 2, amendments to the planning code for the fillmore district is continued until april 136789 i -- 13. in public comment on the 2 items? is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed.. >> on that motion to continue matters. commissioner, that motion passes 7-0 under your consent calendars. all matters are considered to be routine by the planning commission and
2:03 am
will be acted by the roll call. in which the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or future hearing. item 95 c, 65 camden drive. item 4, 51 c, 248 market street request for conditional use authorization. item no. 5. d and 1245 avenue request for discretionary review. on march 14th, the commission adopted and motion to prove the project from moving the kitchen and continue the item to april 4th consent calendar to allow draft with the appropriate findings.
2:04 am
>> 1096 union street. item 7, amendments to the planning code adding new section 102.31 to establish annual monitoring requirement. item 8, intention to initiate again planner amendments to a bicycle plan pursuant to code, the commission will consider to amend initiation to the planning. i believe there is one speaker card. >> g white. hi. i would like to
2:05 am
object to item no. 6, 1096 union street. i'm a resident of the neighborhood and professor: if you are going to request to have it pulled off consent that's all you need to do we'll pull it off and have it heard as the first item at the regular cal endar. any other public comments on the consent calendar? commissioner moore, were you interested in pulling off an item? >> i had asked staff to consider pulling 40 off and i think that concurred with you having received an e-mail. >> okay. let's do this, let's hear the 40th avenue item first and then the union street item 2nd on the regular calendar.
2:06 am
commissioner, so moved to move item 4 and 8. second. on a motion to approve items 3, 4, 8, commissioner, so moved. that motion passes unanimously 7-0 and places questions and matters. item 9 consideration of draft for march 14, 2013 and march 21, 2013.
2:07 am
public comment on the 2 draft minutes if there is any? is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore? this is unfortunately the question of curiosity. is the title of these minutes, minutes or is it planning commission notice of meeting and calendar. that is a dumb question because i have review them for years but never paid attention to that particular aspect. >> these are the minutes. however the title has been that way since i have known them to be. we should certainly include, change the word draft for minutes once they are finalized. >> thank you. >> is there a motion to approve? commissioner borden? we need a second?
2:08 am
>> second. >> thank you commissioners on a motion to approve draft minutes for march 14 and 23rd, commissioners, aye, wu and fong. that passes unanimously 7-0 and places you on item 10. i wanted to thank the director and staff for this excellent report. although i have only glimpse at it. it looks very attractive and i look forward to reading it in more detail. second, for people who are interested in tracking code violations. there is a free app now which you can put on your cellphone which is u p 2 code.
2:09 am
the website was launched monday and helps that you not just call 311 but key yourself where the code violation s this was published on the examiner on april 4, unless it's a fools day joke i don't know. it is possible to do it this way. i will pass the printout out so you can follow it. mr. sanchez will be greatly alleviated to see this work. >> thank you, i was fortunate to be able to attend an event last night at pier 28. i thought it was very well done. it involved a panel discussion and brought together some members of the tech community, the small business owners association and it was also under the auspices of
2:10 am
and supervisor ferrel motion to dismiss moderated the group and there was good information regarding small businesses in general and the city family and what can be done to move things more smoothly and help each other promote their businesses and everyone really liked it. in fact the event was quickly sold out once it was announced and i think they plan to do more in the future. i think it's really a step in the right direction. a lot of times issues we have are easily worked out when people talk to each other and sometimes there is not a lot of dialogue going on. i'm not saying any of these groups had any issues but it was a good forum to bring these issues and it's the beginning of hopefully that could be very productive for the ske. --
2:11 am
city. >> i wasn't going to bring this up but might as well. i have been having some meetings with representative from japan town with respect to jhs, japanese community strategy. and i think one of the questions that has come up and this also directed to the city attorneys office is, in what form does the commission actually endorse or adopt or recognize or whatever the term is since this is not a traditional land use plan and more of an economic and community development strategy. so i think there was some questions as to what the commission and the historic
2:12 am
preservation commission if applicable would take on the document itself. and i think there were questions with respect to if it were recognized in some fashion and i don't know if that's the right word, what kind of policy implications would there be back on the planning commission when there were land use conditions to be made and how did us this document influence or form as the basis for decision making and that kind of question. so i just put that out there. i think maybe if staff and city of attorneys office can mull that over then we can have a meeting at some point. thank you. >> any additional comments? questions? okay. next item, please. >> commissioners that will place you under directors report item 11, directors announcements.
2:13 am
>> thank you, good afternoon commissioners. i want to follow-up with your recent request for information. you asked about the 19th avenue study' we sent a notice on that and i have more information on that. you have copies of the annual report. you asked about in light of fairly a lot of opposition on polk street to the mta's bike lane proposal. you asked us to follow-up with mta to see what their plans are. the short answer is they don't know that yet. they are looking at options and we'll get back to you to see how they are moving with that potential bike lane on that street. in the packet you will see drawings related to the idea of alternative if on interstate 280 that might involve the removal of that we have crafts
2:14 am
-- drafts in your packet to see if the alternative rail would be chosen in the future. you asked for the new facade. if you might recall, that project is not subject to the department or commissions approval. we don't have it on file. we have a new drawing and i have asked them to draft a short memo. as soon as we have that, we'll get that to you as well. lastly, i think that last week's packet you got the technical memo related to the eir for cpmc that explains how the eir that was done covers the proposed alternative. this week's packet for next week you have the packet that will initiate the plan and changes next week and the actual
2:15 am
tentative date for the hearing on the project is may 16th. we'll get you the full packet the full 2 weeks in advance so you have enough time for that. today you will get in your packet for next week the initiation packet for cpmc as well. then i want to follow-up on a public workshop last night on the castro urban design plan one of many that we are working on across the city funded by the 2011 bond issue t department is working on the department of public works for the castro and we have incredible turnout. we had 150 people again last night for this meeting looking at alternatives for the castro street i am improvements and including portions of state street as well and looking to
2:16 am
finalize this next month. thank you for the bonds and we'll be able to complete that portion within the next couple of years. >> thank you. any comments, questions. >> commissioners that will place you on item 12, review of board of supervisors, board of appeals. >> good afternoon, commissioners. there is three items. the first is the pourgs portion of supervisor chiu. this week the committee heard the component that dealt with expansion of the tdr's program and allowed to transfer to and from this district. this committee voted in favor of this part and did not recommend any modifications. the measure
2:17 am
to prove this ordinance and recommended the board do so and supervisor kim asked questions and asked for a brief hearing. the second ordinance to delete the provision for the alcohol excelsor. i would like to remind you on april 18 you will hear a related ordinance that will create the outer mission ncd that will take the place of this alcohol restricted use. you will hear more about that later this month the last item on the committee was the polk street and alcohol ordinance. the planning commission recommended approval on march 14. the revised incorporated
2:18 am
several but not all of your recommendations. you recommended primarily removing the tobacco paraphernalia from polk street, this recommendation was not incorporated. when it comes to alcohol control this commission sought to modify several of the controls primarily getting rid of the ban for a new bar and liquor store will take place in this ordinance. instead of the ban you wanted to prohibit bars and liquor stores there within a certain existence of a bar and liquor stores and wanted to allow others by cu and others with license obtain a c u before this commission. they were not incorporated and you still had other recommendations. you recommended that restaurants
2:19 am
with 47 liquor license obtain liquor license and they continue serving food until they are closed. that was modified into the ordinance and also suggested the ban for liquor establishments be changed so they would not be considered abandoned unless they were not used for 3 or more years. it was lengthened to one year and you added a sunset provision to this lower polk alcohol use district and the amended legislation includes a 5 year sunset. that conincludes the land use committee hearing. on tuesday, at the full board they passed on first reading the market historic district sponsored by kim, breed and campos and recommended approval last fall. there were three ordinances on
2:20 am
final reading this week the landmark designation for the dolger building and update included affordable housing and last was sacramento amendment. that concludes my report. there are no new ordinances this week. >> commissioner borden? >> i thought we had recommended a 12 p.m. closing time and if they stayed open late they serve food. >> you recommended removing the requirement. i'm sorry if i miss spoke. that recommendation was not incorporated. they will continue to need to be closed by midnight. your other one, no, i'm sorry. strike that. okay. so both those
2:21 am
recommendations were incorporated. you no longer have to close at midnight and they must serve food until they close until whatever time that might be. >> that was the big issue if they were a restaurant to serve food. just making sure. >> any other questions? okay. thank you for that report. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, department staff, i'm to share with you a short summary of the historic preservation hearing. after discussion of roles of officers and rules and regulation, the commission elected carl haz as president and andrew wolf as vice-president. that was unanimously approved. at that point hauz pointed commissioner highlander and pearlman to the
2:22 am
architectural review committee and they will have their first committee meeting on april 17th. the commission then continued it's appointment of member to the historic preservation fund committee pending city attorney advice based on they were required to appoint a commissioner to that committee or -- a point any member of the public. the commission then approved a certificate of appropriateness for maintenance in washington square park. that was approved unanimously with several commissioners arguing the compatibility of the new design of the structure. a number of members of the public also came out in support of the new structure. the commission then provided a positive recommendation for 572, 7th
2:23 am
street to use 8039 section of the planning code which allows for flexibility and zoning uses for california register, national register, eligible buildings and city landmarks and they are listed on the california register and it has provided a preservation and maintenance plan for the building over the next 25 years. the commission provided advice to the zoning administrator who will exercise the final decision on whether or not to allow office in a previously pdr zoned building. finally the commission enthusiastically endorsed and adopted the sunset building blders context statement for primarily just the sunset neighborhoods on the west side of the city. it also allows
2:24 am
provides a framework for buildings constructed between 1928 and 1950 in the sunset neighborhood and a copy that have statement has been forwarded to all of you for your information as well. there is a survey associated with the context statement and that survey are the survey findings will be before the hpc sometime this summer. that concludes my comments unless you have any questions. >> wasn't mission street on the agenda? >> yes. 76 mission street, was on the agenda, they continued that item because of the appeal to its may 15th agenda. >> thank you. the board of appeals did not meet last night nor last week but they will be back in action next week. >> okay. thank you, there is nothing further commissioners, item 13. planning on project
2:25 am
implementation. commissioners good afternoon, dan sideers with the department. i'm going to be brief as much as possible. there are three items we would like to run through quickly. firstly a refresher about what we talked about last week and updates to the policy as reflected in your packets and lastly our responses to finding from questions that you had raised at your march hearing. if we can have the overhead, please. >> so commissioners again we are recommending that you take action on two separate policies. the first being a clarifying update to standard commissioner approval language. this would affirm current department practice for everyone involved in the process and the second policy
2:26 am
is one time opt in stimulus program for the project. on the first policy as you know right now standard approval language and this is the language included in your typical approval motions. is internally contradictory. it not clear on how we handle permits that are sought after project performance period has lapsed to implement that project. our process has been been to adopt a conservative stance and require these permits come back to you to be reauthorized by you at a public hearing. what is suggested on your screen now is to get rid of that ambiguity and articulate that practice of hearing to occur. again this is not a change in policy, it is not a change in practice. it is only a clarification and in
2:27 am
crease in certainty. the second policy is the stimulus policy which impacts the recessions and amounts of quality an approved by you along with a near certainty that you see from time to time. in a nutshell this policy would allow a policy issuance after a 3 year performance period has run. very importantly this is not an open-ended policy, it's not an open-ended program, we will be sending a 60 day program for project enrollment. in the program is only exist ing in that window and once enrolled the project would have 18 months to obtain the permits. the policy would not apply to project with clear commission mandated or code mandated time frames. and just
2:28 am
one quick side to remind you on the numbers that under pineal of this, in the last 8 years you approved a number of projects that are not subject to specific time frames. more than a quarter of those projects, about 50 individual projects have exceeded their performance period and in order to move forward would have to come back to you for reauthorization at a new public hearing. in the last five years we have seen 35 request for extensions with only one disapproval and that was a very unusual project with ninety percent certainty with these extension hearings. so we think as a staff there is reason to investigate the question, utility of conducting those hearings. last refresher slide on your screen, the law of today, we talked a good deal about this on your march 14th
2:29 am
hearing, this is a long standing policy regardless of everything else, the commission are balanced by the current law that you either prove a conditional use politics -- application or we continue a building permit. next is to talk about what's changed. there is three items. historically almost all of your approvals have contained a provision that stop the clock when there is an extraordinary delay caused by a public agency. this dropped out of your earlier policy and this is with long and standing practice. it's not a policy change. secondly in your clarification policy, as mentioned in your last hearing we have made